NSA eavesdropping program ruled unconstitutionalJudge orders immediate halt to program

Thursday, August 17, 2006; Posted: 12:57 p.m. EDT (16:57 GMT)

(CNN) -- A federal judge on Thursday ruled that the U.S. government's warrantless wiretapping program is unconstitutional and ordered it ended immediately.

In a 44-page memorandum and order, U.S. District Judge Anna Diggs Taylor, -- who is based in Detroit, Michigan --struck down the National Security Agency's program, which she said violates the rights to free speech and privacy.

Taylor's ruling stems from a case filed by the American Civil Liberties Union. According to The Associated Press, Taylor is the first judge to rule the eavesdropping program unconstitutional. (Read the complete ruling -- PDF)The defendants "are permanently enjoined from directly or indirectly utilizing the Terrorist Surveillance Program (TSP) in any way, including, but not limited to, conducting warrantless wiretaps of telephone and Internet communications, in contravention of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act and Title III," she wrote.

She further declared that the program "violates the separation of powers doctrine, the Administrative Procedures Act, the First and Fourth amendments to the United States Constitution, the FISA and Title III."

She went on to say that "The president of the United States ... has undisputedly violated the Fourth in failing to procure judicial orders."

The lawsuit, filed January 17 by civil rights organizations, lawyers, journalists and educators, "challenges the constitutionality of a secret government program to intercept vast quantities of the international telephone and Internet communications of innocent Americans without court approval."

The judge rejected the government's argument that the program is within the president's authority, according to the AP.

you kissing point: real question is whether bush can do whatever he want in this area, in express violation of statute and warrant requirement of fourth amendment--and, to avoid this little problem, also without so much as meaningful disclosure to courts or congress.

fisa process makes many concessions to potus, including post-search warrants.

It's the correct decision but a lot of questions have been raised about Taylor's legal reasoning. I think this will make the ruling even more vulnerable when it goes before the 6th cir., depending on the panel. You all might be interested to read an article from today's/yesterday's Times about it: http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/19/washington/19ruling.html

It's the correct decision but a lot of questions have been raised about Taylor's legal reasoning. I think this will make the ruling even more vulnerable when it goes before the 6th cir., depending on the panel. You all might be interested to read an article from today's/yesterday's Times about it: http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/19/washington/19ruling.html

This is great, encouraging. Thanks for posting this, Halfie! Though I think Balkin is a tad optimistic about the 6th circuit's relationship with the SCOTUS. It's been reversed almost as much as the 9th circuit lately, I think!

It's the correct decision but a lot of questions have been raised about Taylor's legal reasoning. I think this will make the ruling even more vulnerable when it goes before the 6th cir., depending on the panel. You all might be interested to read an article from today's/yesterday's Times about it: http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/19/washington/19ruling.html

This is great, encouraging. Thanks for posting this, Halfie! Though I think Balkin is a tad optimistic about the 6th circuit's relationship with the SCOTUS. It's been reversed almost as much as the 9th circuit lately, I think!

From what I know, it's a basic tenet of appellate practice that the decision of the lower court is presumed to be correct. The appellate court must usually make an all-out effort to uphold the decision below. This means that the decision will be upheld on appeal if there exists any valid basis for doing so, even if the judge below justified his decision on a different basis, and even if the stated reasoning of the judge below is wrong.